User talk:Gandalf61/Archive14

Jon Driver
Hi, in view of your previous involvement, you may wish to comment on the discussion at Talk:Jon Driver. TerriersFan (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

categories in Restorations of Masonic...
Howdy Gandalf, I undid your deletion of the categories in the redirect page of Restorations... I know that you are correct in that most redirect pages do not contain categories. I would like to argue that this is an exception under "Sometimes a redirect is placed in an article category because the form of the redirected title is more appropriate to the context of that category." The only category shared between the redirect article and the target article is "esoteric cosmology" otherwise the book contains a unique set of categories which would not make sense to place on the Bromwell article (he was not an architect, but the book deals specifically with sacred geometry and architecture) however they are applicable to the book itself (especially the "masonic books" category). I believe this is a strong enough reason to include categories in the redirect article, but if you disagree please let me know why and we can discuss it further. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's your call, but you should certainly trim back that list of cats - Category:Magic squares is a sub-cat of Category:Numerology, which is in turn a sub-cat of Category:Mathematics and mysticism, so you only need one of those cats. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * well the book contains Magic squares it also contains other parts of numerology not related to magic squares. I will delete the Mathematics and mysticismCoffeepusher (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * and I forgot to mention that I do not intend to have it be a redirect for long, I am working on a full article, but the book is difficult to summarize to say the least so it is taking a bit of time.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Graham's number digits...
Hello, Thank you for correcting the 215th digit in the rightmost Graham's number rightmost digits section: your revision is definitely correct checking https://oeis.org/A133613/b133613.txt

Marcokrt (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for fixing all the glitches
I want to thank you for fixing so many glitches in articles I work on. I am fairly new and am figuring it out and your fixes are really helpful, especially when I get a style issue wrong. The peer interaction is comparable to professional peer review. Gotta love Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akarpe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bullets at AFD
Hi, all the bullets at the global warming AFD make it VERY hard to follow. Bullets should be for the keep/delete declaration. Subsequent back and forth dialogue should just be indented with colons, and NOT asterisks. Please consider tweaking your dialogue comments to help clean up the AFD discussion. I'd do it myself, but I just got chastised for a an ill-considered but well-intended crossing of the line when refactoring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable
Even though I have been editing Wikipedia for six years I still do not understand notability. It seems capricious to me. For instance one year (2008?) a hundred articles about web comics (comics published only on the web) were deleted by an wiki administrator because they weren't notable. I wondered how a hundred articles on a non-notable topic could be written. For instance I was poking around and found an article about a 14th century Latvian nobleman. I do not know how that could possibly be notable. I would guess not. For instance I have written articles on very obscure biochemistry topics, and they have not been deleted for lack of notability.

Recently you invoked notability as a reason to delete an article I created,. It is true that it is notable only because it is the topic of an on-line video. But in 5 days 150,000 people have seen that video and there is no other place on the internet for them to find out the topic is a joke. So if an obscure Latvian nobleman is "notable", why is this not? Certainly not more than 100 people in the whole world have ever heard of the nobleman. You would have to be an intense scholar of medieval Baltic history to know of him.

I realize this sounds petulant, but if we were sitting together you would see I am frustrated at my inability to understand, and not trying to start an argument. I really want to know. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can understand your frustration, but our notability benchmark is very clear. WP:NOTE says that a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" before it counts as notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. So an on-line video will only be notable if several third parties have written about it in reliable sources. The "fractal fraction" video just does not pass this test. In my experience, the best policy in these situations is to try not to get too involved, and to move on to something else. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Archimedean Spiral
Hello Gandalf61, I just noticed that you have deleted a part of my changes to this article which I find however quite important. I wanted to point at the often misleading characterization of the Archimedean spiral as a "spiral with constant separation distance of its turnings", which is wrong seen from a mathematical viewpoint. I have first edited the german article :

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedische_Spirale#.22Windungsabstand.22

and would like now to add a similar remark to the english article. I might however transfer it to a little subsection if this would help. -- Enyak (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Once you had corrected the description of the spiral in the article, I couldn't see much point in re-stating the incorrect description and then just saying it was "somewhat misleading" with no further explanation. This will confuse a reader who has not come across the incorrect description in the first place. If you want to add this point to the article, I think you should (a) find a source (outside of Wikipedia) that uses the incorrect description and then (b) explain exactly why this description is not correct. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Gandalf, I can understand your point. Now I have established a little subsection in order to explain the difference of distance concepts in a few words, but precisely.  --  Enyak (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Vedic square.PNG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vedic square.PNG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RV on big bang
Please raise your objections here so they can be addressed:. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted your change because you removed several reliable sources without discussion with the comment that they came that they came from "religious and small time publishers". InterVarsity Press and Rowman & Littlefield are hardly "small time" and there is no reason why religious publishers should not provide sources for statements about religious issues. Now that you have correcttly started a discussion about these sources on the talk page, I am content to wait and see what the outcome of that discussion is. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I acted correctly at all times, I suggest you consult WP:BRD if you think I have not. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know you acted correctly - that's exactly what I said. You were bold, I reverted, you correctly started a discussion - as opposed to, for example, reinstating your change without discussion, which would have been incorrect. Your tone is now, however, sounding a little hostile. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dark Flow
Hi Gandalf61,

'''(cur | prev) 12:31, 24 January 2012‎ Gandalf61 (talk | contribs)‎. . (9,775 bytes) (-351)‎. . (Undid revision 472955132 by 177.27.99.10 (talk) rv - theory is not notable, source is (a) not a reliable source and (b) not in English) (undo)''' The theory in the book is the ONLY ONE that predicted and explicated the dark flow. If it is not a notable theory, what is? Look the figures that we have in the book’s site, we always have the central point (as the hurricane or galaxies eyes – and the dark flow in our universe) of the structures, you can SEE directly the theory.

Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes, Lavoisier, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Lorentz, Lemaitre, Einstein, Bohr, Friedman, Wegener, Planck, Schrödinger and other researchers, some of them seemed as crazy by almost other normal people, as it seems you are, do not wrote their theories in English. But they were correct. The worlds we wrote will not be deleted, and we have centuries and centuries in the future. Remember this. Time will show who’s right and who are the current Ptolemaic.

Wikipedia, in other languages, accept sources in several languages, instead their native tongue. Or the Truth only can be the Truth if it is in English, just because your native tongue is the English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.117.4.96 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not publish original research. Before information can be included in Wikipedia, it must be verifiabile; this means that it must be published in multiple independent reliable sources. For scientific information, a reliable source is usually an academic journal or a published work by a well known author. Self-published works such as yours do not count as reliable sources - see our policy on self-published sources. The language issue is a secondary one here, but for reference, our policy on non-English sources says "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones". Since it appears that you are attempting to publicise your own work, you should also be aware of our guideline on conflicts of interest. If you want to get your theory into Wikipedia, the best way is to write a paper and get it accepted and published in a reputable academic journal. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Dear Gandalfi61

Thanks for the clarification. But the truth is still truth, even if described in non-reliable source (such as Wikipedia is viewed by many) and in any language.

The theories that have revolutionized human knowledge were not written in papers and neither by people who were in the academy. The great discoveries were made by “crazy” people who challenged the fossilized doctors of the academies.

Wikipedia says you want to embrace all human knowledge and has an exclusionary policy in relation to new ideas, even when they are confirmed by experiments. Flexibility is being plastered by bureaucracy. New ideas are being subjected to a rigor greater than that of the academy.

If there is only a theory that predicts and explains a discovery, it prevails in any language.

Just wait. You will see the truth prevail.

God bless all you.

Robson Z. Conti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.98.80.17 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Q
In, what were the "logical problems" you were thinking of? In set theory, after all, functions are defined as sets of ordered pairs, even when the domain is infinite. So I don't see what the logical problem would be. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that every function can be defined as a set of order pairs. The problem is with the idea that this set of ordered pairs represents a "rule" to find f(x) given x. For this to be possible there needs to be a rule to find the specific ordered pair (x, f(x)), and this is not always possible if the set of ordered pairs is infinite. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the "rule" was simply "pick the unique y such that (x,y) is in the set of pairs". This is another example of how the "rule" language is misleading, I suppose, because it suggests that the rule should be effective in some way. (Even if the set of ordered pairs is finite, if the codomain is infinite presumably the same issue would come up.) &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Dear User:Gandalf61, thank you for standing up for me here. I hope you appreciate the barnstar and the message therein. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much :) Gandalf61 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed external link
Hi, I saw that you had removed an external link I had added to the article Methods of computing square roots, because it was a link to a bulletin board entry. What does it matter that it is a bulletin board entry? —Kri (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Our guideline on external links says that external links to discussion forums and Usenet-style newsgroups should be avoided. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike and Ike...
...eluded me here, so thanks for your pickup! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Symmetry
Would this image be a tremendous example of reflection symmetry from this site thanks.--97.64.214.150 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. The design as a whole isn't symmetric because the small symbols on the left and right sides are completely different. The winged beetle (or whatever it is) in the centre appears at first glance to have a reflection symmetry, but if you look closely at its tail you will see that the left and right sides are different, so it isn't symmetric after all. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Shoot, this is the only one with eloquent varieties of symmetry .--97.64.214.150 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

free will discussion
The old thread was archived while you still had a question pending, so I created a new thread here and posted an answer, in case you haven't seen it. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The thread seems to have gone off in a different direction now. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

python and coin flips!
Hello Gandalf61. You answered my question about coin flips recently, thanks btw, and you suggested that you used python to work out the answer. I've done some very basic python programming and would love to see how you solved the problem. In particluar, I'd like to plug in different numbers of flips so I could graph out the average run lentgh vs number of flips. Could you post the code on my talk page maybe? That would be great. Vespine (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fibonacci numbers
Gandalf, if you disagree with my edits on Fibonacci numbers, please discuss the matter at the talk page. I have provided evidence that beginning with 1 is a normal mathematical convention. You don't seem to want to accept it. Unless you are the world's authority on Fibonacci numbers, you ought to discuss this before jumping in to edit. I look forward to seeing your reasoning. Thank you. Zaslav (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think you did provide evidence. You have just made an assertion without providing any sources. What you said in the article isn't exactly wrong, but it does put too much emphasis on a trivial point which was already sufficiently covered. Bottom line is I don't think you have improved the article, but I probably won't revert you again. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look at the cited book you will find the evidence. Zaslav (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * When you say "cited book" I assume you mean the book that you mentioned on the article's talk page. If this is your "evidence" then you should cite it as a source in the article as well. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought I had. Thanks for pointing out my oversight.  I will fix it. Zaslav (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Trigonometric functions
Hello Gandalf61,

you reverted my edit with the proof of definition of trigonometric functions by functional equations, asking for a link. The proof can be found only in advanced mathematics books, e.g. "Functional Equations and Inequalities with Applications" by Palaniappan Kannappan (Springer, 2009) which is hardly illuminating for an average student. I propose to put back the proof but in a collapsed window, with the reference to the above mentioned book. Will you agree? Another option it to put only the correct set of defining equations (without any proof), since in the present (i.e. undone) version they are redundant. Adamb76 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that your proposed proof section is too long and detailed for Wikipedia - remember that Wikipedia is not a textbook. But if you insist on inserting it, make sure that any changes you make include a reference to a reliable source. Also, your proof section should reproduce the published proof exactly - any attempt to modify the published proof is original research, even if you think your version is better. And enclose the proof section in a collapsed frame, as suggested at WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. If you want a third opinion on any of this, the best place to start a discussion is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed the proof in the book differs from mine, while reproducing the book's one exactly would be hardly understood by an average wikipedia reader. So I leave the section without a proof, but I state the book's result. Still, if such a proof is found to be useful in future I can insert it on request. Adamb76 (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiplicative group of integers modulo n--new section
When you get a chance can you look at the group of false witnesses section? thanksRich (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * At the moment that section looks like original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. As a minimum I think you must provide a source for the term "group of false witnesses" - I did a quick Google search but I couldn't find any use of this term in a number theory context. And the fact that 8 is a "false witness" for 9 is not notable since n-1 will always be a "false witness" for any odd composite n; it just so happens that 9 is the smallest odd composite number. This topic is covered in much more detail in our article on Fermat pseudoprimes. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I got the name group of false witnesses. from Erdos & Pomerance in Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Math #1140, edited by the Chudnovskys. Perhaps 8 for 9 isn't notable, we don't have to use it. I was mainly just trying to be explanatory with a small example.-Rich Peterson198.189.194.129 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you should cite that source in the article so it is clear you have not made up the name yourself. You're suggesting i made it up? wow you really are a piece of shit aren't you? 198.189.194.129 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Gandalf61 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't talk to me like that, bud. I'm not done with what can be done with the new section, such as wikifying and adding sources, I meant it as a courtesy as well as to improve the section when I consulted you. You are the one to be distrusted at this point; I just did a google search; how could a competent google search fail to pick up:

About 1,100,000 results (0.16 seconds) Search Results

[PDF] On the Number of False Witnesses - Mathematics at Dartmouth www.math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/PDF/paper55.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View by P Erdös - 1986 - Cited by 21 - Related articles Thus, if n is composite, then F (n) is the set (in fact, group) of residues mod n that are false witnesses for n and F (n) is the number of such residues. If n is prime, ...

So you're either lying or incompetent, which is it? (Try being civil; maybe you'll even make friends offline!)19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)198.189.194.129 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've calmed down, and I would like to apologize for my incivilities. The harsh remarks I made are almos t certainly incorrect and a result of a misunderstanding. Rich (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added this. Zentralblatt is a very useful search engine. Deltahedron (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Catenary
You are not "editor in chief" of this article. In Wikipedia everybody is equal, no difference between a mad psykopat or a renowed scientific authority

Text of other editors is normally not removed. The exception being a large consensus between several editors.

To avoid an "editing war" I will leave it to you to revert your deletion yourself

PS: There is a lot of text in this article I think is poor! But I am also no "editor in chief" of this article

User:Stamcose


 * I deleted your new sections because:
 * They were unsourced.
 * They were too long, adding over 12kb to a 39kb article.
 * They mostlty derive results and properties given elsewhere in the article.
 * Lengthy derivations and proofs do not belong in Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a text book.
 * I see no reason to revert my deletion. However I will raise this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to see what other editors think. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Having seen the notice here, I would comment that discussion as to how to write an article should be held at the article talk page. Discussion about editors' motivations and conduct, on the other hand, should definitely not be held there.  Deltahedron (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical pedagogy.
Critical pedagogy. Sorry I did not know how it works. I am a recognized scholar in this area. I will just have to wait for some one else to write about the contributions. Unless you can suggest another idea. Best Sheila — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smacrine (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fermat
Dear Gandalf61, my papers are not self promotion, but a service for the people loving FLT in elementary way. I am 71 years old and have no need of promotion. Wikipedia is important and the people can have the knowledge of the achievements of the science and we must not be afraid of divulging good things. These papers have been more than 5 years under review and nobody of the revisors found mistakes. I hope you do not obstruct the truth. Nicola Fragnito, actually professor in Sannio university, retired by university of Naples — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola.fragnito (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Other editors have explained at your talk page why you should not put links to your own papers on Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Ultimate Prime" - subtitle "The Logic And Regularity Of The Primes"
How can I work with you to get this genuine information onto this Wikipedia page?

I am new to edits of Wikipedia pages. My edit was genuine and the words included based entirely on fact and fact that could be verified from public domain sources:-

1. Ultimate Prime, subtitle; The Logic And Regularity Of The Primes, is listed in Bowker's Books in Print and is available on sale to be ordered by anyone using the ISBN listed and given in the reference edit.

2. A copy has been deposited as the legal deposit with the British Library. So you or anyone can request to see it or access it, subject to their procedures.

The information in the book is subject to the copyrights of the author and subject to the copyrights of the publisher, but on that basis is now in the public domain and on the public record and so I think my edits were factual, accurate, supported by evidence, notable in human history and from a reliable source; in that you have no evidence to the contrary other than your own unsupported opinion or judgement; I understand that you may find it difficult to revise your opinion or judgement until you have read the book.

Apart from your assumption that the pattern of the primes has not been found, which is merely unsupported opinion and judgement I cannot imagine what evidence you can provide for your edit of removal of my edits.

I understand it may be difficult to accept that someone has found the pattern of the primes, but my book sets out the proof that I have done so. My edit reduced the statement of fact to "a claim" whereas a more confident statement would just have said the pattern has been found; I realise I was tentative on this merely because it was my first edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinRW (talk • contribs) 02:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you to provide reliable sources to show that the subject of your claim is both true and notable. Given the ease of self-publishing, merely citing a book title or ISBN or saying that something is "in the public domain" is insufficient. A claim to have made a notable new discovery in such a well researched area as the prime numbers will need to be supported by a paper in a peer-reviewed academic publication as an absolute minimum. Also, Wikipedia prefers authors not to cite their own work, and citing your own publication purely in order to promote it is definitely prohibited - see WP:SELFCITE and WP:SELFPROMOTE. Gandalf61 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Lambert W function
I added the relation $$W_{-1}\left(-\frac{\ln a}{a}\right)= -\ln a \quad \left(a<0, e\le a\right)$$ (W-1 is the -1 branch of W) to the Lambert W page, but it was removed, because what I saw as two reasons. Firstly, it was stated that ln a is not defined for a < 0, which is not true. ln a for a < 0 is a complex number, but still defined. Secondly, it was said that the conditions was contradictory. Maybe what was written could be read as a < 0 AND a > e, which is obviously contradictory, I meant a < 0 OR a > e, i.e. a could not be between 0 and e, and also, I was talking about W-1, which is another branch than the principal branch (just stressing that to avoid misunderstandings). Maybe you could help me rewrite this so that it would be interpreted OR and not AND.

I would very much appreciate feedback.

Tjajab (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The formula may be correct for a > e, when both the argument on the left hand side and the result on the right hand side take real values. To make any sense at all for a < 0 it would need to define which branch of the complex logarithmic function is intended on each side of he expression, and it is not even clear to me that the branch $$W_{-1}$$ of the Lambert W function is well defined for complex arguments. Your best approach is to find a reliable source that can be cited as a source for this formula. Gandalf61 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)